If it's not the meek, maybe then it's the ignorant?
Encouraging isn't it?
I am talking about the breed specific legislation that has passed in the State of Maryland. Where any dog that looks like a pit bull is to be considered "inherently dangerous." How does this affect everyone who loves pets? If you own a house and rent it, and if your tenant has a dog that might look like a pit bull you are hereby deemed responsible for anything that dog might do.
It's preposterous!
I am talking about the breed specific legislation that has passed in the State of Maryland. Where any dog that looks like a pit bull is to be considered "inherently dangerous." How does this affect everyone who loves pets? If you own a house and rent it, and if your tenant has a dog that might look like a pit bull you are hereby deemed responsible for anything that dog might do.
It's preposterous!
If the experts are telling you that it is NOT the breed, but the owners who are the danger to society, then why isn't anyone listening?
It is heart-breaking to know that many wonderful dogs will be put down, or surrendered (and then put down), and further unjustly discriminated against, just because they "look" dangerous.
I thought that we had already decided that racial profiling wasn't accurate or legal?
I spend my entire professional life trying to educate my clients, and pet owners across the globe, and in the end I needed to be in Annapolis talking to politicians?
The news feed from the week;
Get AP Mobile for your phone at GetAPMobile.com
Dog-bite liability bill fails in special session
BRIAN WITTE
Published: Aug 14, 2012 ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) - A measure that Maryland lawmakers hoped would address liability concerns relating to a court ruling on dog bites by pit bulls has died in the recent special session on gambling.
The House and Senate could not reconcile differences between the two chambers by early Wednesday morning.
Lawmakers wanted to change the law to address liability concerns over a breed-specific court ruling by Maryland's highest court, which determined pit bulls to be "inherently dangerous." The ruling means that in an attack involving a pit bull, plaintiffs in civil lawsuits don't have to prove the animal's prior violent behavior for the owner to be held liable for damages. The ruling also means landlords can be held liable in dog-bite cases on their property.
The failure to pass the bill means the court's ruling will stand.
 |
| This is Charleston. My Maryland home grown pit bull mix dog. |
Really interesting post, and definitely right, the ignorant will be here much longer than anybody bc ignorance is bliss.
ReplyDelete